DOCSLIB.ORG

Key Messages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Key Messages POLICY BRIEF: THE CASE FOR ENERGY-SMART FOOD SYSTEMS Key messages • Energy poverty in many regions is a fundamental and refrigeration, transport and distribution and barrier to reducing hunger and ensuring that the preparation of food is required to make food world can produce enough food to meet future systems energy-smart. The energy embedded in demand. food can be saved by reducing food losses and waste. • Modernizing food and agriculture systems by increasing the use of fossil fuels, as was done in • Energy access can be increased by deploying the past, may not be an affordable or sustainable renewable energy technologies and by increasing option. energy efficiency. Integrated food energy systems (IFES) offer a range of opportunities for fulfilling • The food sector accounts for around 30 percent the three key objectives of energy-smart food of the world’s total energy consumption and systems: greater energy efficiency, increased use accounts for around 22 percent of total GHG of renewable energy and improved energy access. emissions. • To achieve the transformation to energy-smart • Energy-smart food systems improve access to food systems, policy-makers need to coordinate modern energy services, rely more on low-carbon policy formulation regarding energy and food energy systems and use energy more efficiently. among government ministries responsible for They also strengthen the role of renewable energy, food, agriculture, energy, health, transport; including bioenergy, within food systems and help economic development and the environment. support the achievement of national food security and sustainable development goals. • Energy-smart food systems can only work if legal and regulatory frameworks regarding • Energy-smart food systems are also ‘climate- the use of land and other resources are in place smart’ since they help mitigate climate change by before introducing renewable energy policies; a reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They can also comprehensive multi-stakeholders dialogue is help rural communities adapt to climate change by essential. increasing their reliance on local energy sources and diversifying incomes. • There is a need to strengthen the considerable gaps in knowledge regarding the food, energy, • Bioenergy crops, biomass residues from food climate nexus. production and processing and renewable energy platforms, such as wind, solar, minihydro and • Given the complexity and challenges involved, geothermal are possible sources of renewable the shift towards energy-smart food systems energy that can be harnessed in energy-smart food will necessarily be gradual. Towards this end, systems. However, the risks and benefits must be FAO is proposing a multi-partner programme on weighed carefully. climate-smart food systems for people and food to be launched in 2012. • Greater energy efficiency in crop cultivation, irrigation and fertilizer use, as well as the storage ight now one billion people are hungry or living under the threat of hunger. By 2030 the demand for Rfood will increase by 50 percent (Bruisma, 2009), and it is expected that population expansion and economic growth will increase the global demand for energy and water by 40 percent (IEA, 2010, WEF, 2011). It is clear that in our efforts to build a world without hunger, we will need more energy. Energy poverty, food security and the Millennium Development Goals Food systems require energy, but they can also produce energy. Consequently, they have a unique role to play in alleviating ‘energy poverty’. At present, almost 3 billion people have limited access to modern energy services for heating and cooking and 1.4 billion have zero or limited access to electricity. Reducing energy poverty has been recognized as the ‘missing development goal’. Without access to electricity and sustainable energy sources, communities have little chance to achieve food security and no opportunities for securing productive livelihoods that can lift them out of poverty. Basic services, such as education and health care, cannot be adequately provided. Moving beyond fossil fuels The ‘green revolution’ of the 1960s and 1970s, which solved pressing food shortage problems at the time and helped ensure that food production has been able to keep pace with population growth, was made possible in part by improved plant breeding but also by an abundant supply of inexpensive fossil fuels. These fuels made it possible to manufacture and operate more farm machinery, increase the supply and application of fertilizers and pesticides, expand irrigation, refrigerate perishable goods and transport food around the world. But now there are questions about the world’s reserves of fossil fuels. As concerns over fossil fuel supply have mounted, the prices of fossil fuels have become more volatile and are expected to rise. This has serious implications both for countries that benefited from the initial green revolution and for those countries that are looking to modernize their food systems along similar lines. Modernizing food and agriculture systems by increasing the use of fossil fuels as was done in the past may no longer be an affordable option. We need to rethink the role of energy when considering our options for improving food systems. Shifting toward ‘energy-smart’ food systems Although fossil fuels will continue to be used for many years, making a gradual shift to more energy-efficient food systems that make greater use of renewable energy technologies may be the most viable solution for simultaneously reducing fossil fuel dependency, improving productivity in the food sector and addressing energy-poverty in rural areas. The transformation to ‘energy-smart’ food systems requires: • relying more on low-carbon energy systems and using energy more efficiently; • strengthening the role of renewable energy, including bioenergy, to provide greater energy access for social and economic development and supporting the achievement of national food security and sustainable development goals. Making this transformation will require a careful consideration of both: • the direct and indirect energy used by food systems at each stage in the supply chain and • the potential energy produced by these systems. Reducing the dependency of food systems on fossil fuels is not just an issue that affects the future of global 2 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations www.fao.org/bioenergy food production, it is important for addressing food insecurity right now. The spike in global food prices in 2008, which lead to a sharp increase in the number of hungry, was in part due to increased world energy prices. Prices for commodities,including food, tend to be linked with global energy prices, As energy prices fluctuate and trend upwards, so do food prices. A food sector that is less dependent on fossil fuels could help stabilize food prices for consumers and reduce the financial risks for food producers and others involved in the food supply chain. Energy-smart is ‘climate-smart’ At the same time as it must become more productive, agriculture must also cope with a changing climate. FAO along with other partners is promoting ‘climate-smart agriculture’, which: • contributes to climate change adaptation by sustainably increasing productivity and resilience; • mitigates climate change by reducing and/or removing greenhouse gases; and • enhances the achievement of national food security and development goals. Shifting to more energy-smart food systems is clearly an important step toward reaching the broader goals of climate-smart agriculture. Furthermore, making agriculture energy-smart and climate-smart are both part of a larger paradigm shift in agriculture being promoted by FAO and other partners under the term ‘Save and Grow’1. This new paradigm recognizes that to ensure global food security we will have to do more with less. Making agriculture more productive and resilient will demand better management of natural resources, such as land, water, soil and genetic resources. Multi-Partner Programme: “Energy-Smart Food for People and Climate” An interdisciplinary ‘nexus’ approach is necessary to ensure that food, energy and climate are jointly addressed, trade-offs considered, and appropriate safeguards are put in place. These issues will not be addressed through a single initiative. Because of its importance, scope and complexity, this challenge must be met through participation of a broad constituency of interested parties. This demands a multi‐partner international effort to implement energy-smart solutions in a non‐fragmented and cost effective way. Within this context, FAO proposes setting up an “Energy Smart’ Food for People and Climate” Multi-Partner Programme to be launched in 2012. The aim of the Programme is to address the energy dimension in relation to food security and energy poverty and should be seen as an essential component to climate-smart agriculture. Energy consumption and GHG emissions in the food sector he food sector accounts for around 30 percent of the world’s total energy consumption (FAO, 2011a). TPrimary farm and fishery production2 accounts for around one-fifth of this energy demand. In developed countries, energy used for processing, transport and food preparation is usually around three to four times the amount used for primary production. In developing countries, the energy demand for primary production is typically around 10 percent, for food transport and processing 15 percent, and for cooking and preparation up to 75 percent. 1 FAO, 2011b 2 Primary production
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Changes in Agriculture of the Green Revolution States: Implications for Agricultural Development
    Aerie. Econ. Res. Rev., Vol. 5(1), 1992 CHANGES IN AGRICULTURE OF THE GREEN REVOLUTION STATES: IMPLICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SURESH PAL*, MRUTHYUNJAYA* AND PRATAP S. BIRTHAL** ABSTRACT This paper examines the changes in the agriculture of green revolution states. The results revealed that a decrease in the share of agriculture in state domestic product was not accompanied by appropriate fall in the workers in agriculture. Consequently, man-land ratio increased over time, markedly in West U.P. The share of purchased and energy based inputs has increased over the years and formed about 50 per cent of the operational cost. The share of capital in gross value added was substantially higher than that of human labour in the production of wheat, whereas the share of capital and human labour was almost equal in the case of paddy. A sharp decline in the returns to management in the production of wheat calls for developing cost saving technology and reappraisal of price policy. The adoption of new seed-fertilizer based technology and large capital investment (both private and public) in key inputs, particularly in irrigation, have ushered in the "Green Revolution"(GR) in India in the mid-sixties. Consequently, crop production has registered an impressive growth. Because of strong input-output linkages in modern technology, the growth in agriculture was also accompanied by the overall economic development (Bhalla et a!, 1990). However, certain issues relating to structure of agriculture have become important in the period of green revolution which need attention. The new technology is suspected on the ground that while transforming the subsistence agriculture into commer- cial farming, it may induce the well-off farmers to accumulate more and more land through tenancy eviction, purchasing land from marginal and small farmers and encroaching on commons.
    [Show full text]
  • The Philippines Impact of the Green Revolution on Agriculture Rice: the Primary Crop Major Events of the Green Revolution
    The Philippines Impact of the Green Revolution on Agriculture Rice: The Primary Crop Major Events of the Green Revolution • 1960s- the government of the Republic of the Philippines with the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation established IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) • 1962- the IRRI crossed Dee-Geo-woo-gen and Peta rice strains • 1968- IR8, or “miracle rice,” was formed • 1981- the use of miracle rice reaches 81% of total rice crops Benefits • IR8, “miracle rice,” produced ten times the amount of rice as traditional varieties • As a result of the switch to farming IR8, annual rice production in the Philippines increased from 3.7 to 7.7 million tons in 2 decades • The large increase in rice production allowed the Philippines to become an exporter of rice for the first time in the 20th century Environmental and Agricultural Problems • Chemical fertilizers used in conjunction with miracle rice eroded soil • Increased rice production led to increased water consumption • Pesticides and fertilizers used in rice farming polluted water and caused siltation • Declining water quality poses a threat to future rice production, due to the high amount of clean water required to grow rice • The Philippines did not have sufficient funding to improve irrigation systems→ fell behind neighboring countries • Vulnerable to recurring natural disasters, which posed a large threat to the agriculture-based economy Rice Production Afterwards • 1973- the Philippines experienced domestic/international problems causing a downfall in economic
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Farming As a Development Strategy: Who Are Interested and Who Are Not?
    Vol. 3, No. 1 Journal of Sustainable Development Organic Farming as A Development Strategy: Who are Interested and Who are not? Mette Vaarst Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Aarhus P.O.Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark Tel: 45-22-901-344 E-mail: Mette.Vaarst[a]agrsci.dk Abstract Much evidence shows that implementation of organic farming (OF) increases productivity in the Global South, and that it will be possible to feed a growing world population with food produced in OF systems. OF is explored, analysed and discussed in relation to the principles of Ecology, Health, Care and Fairness as enunciated by IFOAM, as a developmental strategy. Major financial powers are involved in the agro-related industries. A number of civil society-based organisations point to the major negative side effects of the trade with and use of agro-chemical products environmentally and in the further deepening of the gaps between rich and poor. The MDGs target the environmental sustainability explicitly, and OF is regarded as being a relevant strategy to meet many goals. A global development strategy is needed that explicitly includes future generations, ecosystems, biodiversity and plant and animal species threatened by eradication. Keywords: Organic farming principles, Health, Care, Fairness, Ecology, Development strategy, Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), Food security 1. Introduction: Organic and agro-ecological agriculture can feed the world – if we want to Organic and agro-ecological farming methods are based on the key principles of Health, Ecology, Fairness and Care enunciated by IFOAM (IFOAM, 2005; see Table 1). These principles are implemented in various sets of standards, legislation and guidelines in different countries, and are valued by the consumers and citizens of those countries for different reasons, such as that they guarantee healthy food production, assure environmental protection and emphasise local resources and food systems.
    [Show full text]
  • THE GREEN REVOLUTION in ASIA: Lessons for Africa
    ©FAO/J. Koelen ©FAO/J. THE GREEN REVOLUTIONIN ASIA: Lessons For AFriCA Hira Jhamtani — 45 — CLIMATE CHANGE AND FOOD SYSTEMS RESILIENCE IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................47 PRODUCTION INCREASE NOT SUSTAINABLE ..................................................................48 GREEN REVOLUTION LIMITS ...........................................................................................50 COHERENCE IN DEVELOPMENT POLICY KEY TO FOOD SECURITY .................................52 Environmental and natural resource management ........................................................................ 53 Industrial and other development policies ...................................................................................... 53 Social issues ........................................................................................................................................ 54 DIVERSE ALTERNATIVES EXIST ......................................................................................55 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................56 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................57 tables Table 1: Where are the hungry? ...............................................................................................47 Table 2: Who are the hungry? ..................................................................................................47
    [Show full text]
  • Green Revolution
    ISSUE PRIMER Green Revolution Bankrolled by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations in the 1960s — and subsequently by publicly funded institutions and governments — the “Green Revolution” promoted the use of high yielding seed varieties, irrigation, mechanization, fertilizers and pesticides. Heavily influenced by Cold War ideology, the Green Revolution aimed to increase productivity in countries perceived as susceptible to communism because of rural poverty and hunger. Rather than increasing production through land reform and agroecology, the Green Revolution promoted technological intensification. By the 1970s, it became apparent that Green Revolution technologies were biased in favor of large, highly capitalized farmers and thus accentuated social inequalities. Government institutions began reaching out to small farm- ers with the goal of incorporating them into industrial agriculture. Credit, training and input packages were extended to peasants under the assumption that “early adopters” would survive and grow, while late- or non-adopters would be forced out of agriculture and into the labor market. Indeed, many smallholders were pushed out of agriculture and into the massive city slums now common throughout the Global South. Others began farming fragile hillsides and marginal lands, deepening cycles of poverty, environmental degradation and vulnerability. As a result, while the total available food in the developing world rose by 11 percent between 1970 and 1990, the number of hungry people also rose by 11 percent. Despite grain sur- pluses, poor people simply couldn’t afford the food being produced. As chemical fertilizers eroded the soil’s natu- ral fertility and as pests developed tolerance to pesticides, farmers had to apply increasing amounts of chemicals to get the same yields.
    [Show full text]
  • The Contradictions of the Green Revolution*
    The Contradictions of the Green Revolution* Will the Green Revolution turn red? That is the big question about the recent and highly publicized upsurge in Third-World food production. Food output is rising, but so is the number of unemployed in countryside and city. Is this growing class of dispossessed going to rise up in socialist revolution? Such is the specter invoked in an increasing number of mass-media news stories. Scholarly studies echo the same fear, and concern is growing among officials at the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, the World Bank, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID). All of these organizations are anxiously trying to buy the answers to these questions. As more and more research money flows out, reams of reports from eager university and field-staff researchers are piling up. Yet for all the vast literature, radical researchers and strategists have paid little heed to the Green Revolution or to its revolutionary potential.1 This is a strange oversight in a generation of radicals more impressed by peasant revolution than by Marx’s vision of revolution by an industrial proletariat. How important is this new development to U.S. foreign policy, that such mighty institutions should be stirred into action? What is the real impact of the Green Revolution on the internal contradictions of modern capitalism? Will social tensions be abated or exacerbated? It is my hope that this essay, which discusses these and related questions, will open a discussion among radicals and move others to probe more deeply into the whole phenomenon. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Malthusianism, Capitalist Agriculture, and the Fate of Peasants in the Making of the Modern World Food System
    ARTICLE10.1177/0486613403257801Review of Radical Political EconomicsRoss / The /Making Fall 2003 of the Modern World Food System Malthusianism, Capitalist Agriculture, and the Fate of Peasants in the Making of the Modern World Food System ERIC B. ROSS Population and Development Program, Institute of Social Studies, P. O. Box 29776, The Hague, The Netherlands, 2502 LT Received Jan. 17, 2000; accepted July 18, 2002. Abstract This article describes the role of Malthusian thinking as a rationale for the commercial development of global agriculture at the expense of peasant-livelihood security. Focusing on the impact of the cold war, in an era of peasant insurgency, it explores how the Green Revolution reflected and reinforced the West’s conviction that technological innovation, rather than more equitable systems of production, should resolve the problem of world food security said to be due to “overpopulation.” JEL classification: N50; O13; Q18 Keywords: Malthusianism; capitalist agriculture; Green Revolution; cold war 1. Introduction Since the publication of Thomas Malthus’s Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798, the dominant Malthusian discourse has argued that poverty, underdevelopment, and associated patterns of mortality and environmental degradation can all be regarded chiefly as products of human population pressure on the means of subsistence. This reflects the central argument of Malthus’s work, which sought to explain the nature and origin of pov- erty in a way that exonerated capitalist economy by suggesting that it was the reproductive and productive behaviors of the poor themselves that caused their material suffering. Equally appealing to the ruling class of his own time, and in the years to come, was the fact that Malthusian thinking stood firmly against the radical belief in human progress that was associated, first, with the French and, later, with the Russian revolution, by insisting that any efforts to ameliorate the living conditions of the poor would tend to only make matters Review of Radical Political Economics, Volume 35, No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Silver in the Green Revolution Prepared for the Silver Institute
    The Role of Silver in the Green Revolution Prepared for The Silver Institute July 2018 CRU International Silver Institute – The Role of Silver in the Green Revolution CRU International Limited’s responsibility is solely to its direct client (The Silver Institute). Its liability is limited to the amount of the fees actually paid for the professional services involved in preparing this report. We accept no liability to third parties, howsoever arising. Although reasonable care and diligence has been used in the preparation of this report, we do not guarantee the accuracy of any data, assumptions, forecasts or other forward-looking statements. Copyright CRU International Limited 2018. All rights reserved. CRU Consulting, a division of CRU International Limited 800 Cranberry Woods Dr, Suite 220, Cranberry Twp, PA, 16066, United States Tel: 1 724 940 7100, Fax: 1 724 940 4488, Website: www.crugroup.com July 2018 Page i Silver Institute – The Role of Silver in the Green Revolution Table of Contents Executive summary 4 1. Power 7 1.1. Solar ................................................................................................................. 10 1.1.1. China ........................................................................................................ 11 1.1.2. North America .......................................................................................... 12 1.1.3. Europe...................................................................................................... 14 1.1.4. India ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Popullution: a Position Paper on Population. INSTITUTION Environmental Education Center, Oteen, N.C.; Madison County Public Schools' Marshall, N.C
    DOCUMENT RESUME BD 106 085 88 SE 018 496 AUTHOR Durner, Mary Beth TITLE Popullution: A Position Paper on Population. INSTITUTION Environmental Education Center, Oteen, N.C.; Madison County Public Schools' Marshall, N.C. SPONS AGENCY Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education (DHEII/OE), Washington, D.C. PUB DATE [74] NOTE 76p. EDRS PRICE MF-$0.76 HC-$4.43 PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS Elementary Secondary Education; *Environmental Education; Instructional Materials; Interdisciplinary Approach; Learning Activities; *Population Education; *Population Growth; Population Trends; *Science Education; *Teaching Guises ILMITIFIERS Elementary Secondary Education Act Title III; ESEA Title III ABSTRACT This position paper presents an interdisciplinary approach to the study of population. Six main sections are included in the paper: Introduction, The Growth of the Human Population, The Psychological Effects of Population Growth, Overpopulated America, Myths Concerning Population Growth and Control, and Population Education. Section 1, an introduction, opens the paper with an example of population growth in the Aztec society. Section 2 traces the history of population growth and man's steady removal of predators and diseases which once limited population growth. Section 3 examines the effects of overpopulation in relationship to basic characteristic~ of man. Overpopulated America, Section 4, looks at the history, present status, and future problem of population growth in America. Section 5 discusses such topics as space migration, immigration on earth, and the green revolution. The last section focuses on population education. This section includes guidelines for an interdisciplinary course, a sinicourse, an episode, possible population programs, two plays, and a populatiOn survey. Thepaper also contains a bibliography including readings, films, filmstrips, slides, and organizations and agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 20 the Green Revolution Rockefeller Foundation, 1943 Scott Kohler
    Case 20 The Green Revolution Rockefeller Foundation, 1943 Scott Kohler Background. For the last five years, we’ve had more people starving and hungry. But something has happened. Pakistan is self-sufficient in wheat and rice, and India is moving towards it. It wasn’t a red, bloody revolution as predicted. It was a green revolution. Norman Borlaug recalls William Gaud speaking these words at a small meeting in 1968.280 Gaud, who, at the time, administered the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), was describing an almost unbelievable surge in food output then being achieved by a number of Asian nations that had seemed, until very recently, to be on the brink of disaster. The two nations cited by Gaud were especially worrisome. Neither Pakistan, a country of 115 million people, nor India, whose population already exceeded half a billion, had been producing enough food to meet the growing need of its rapidly expanding population. Famine, and its attendant turmoil, seemed inevitable. But Gaud was right. Something had happened. Within a few years, food production in India, Pakistan, and many of their neighbors, would outstrip population growth. The threat of mass starvation would loom less ominously over the land, and Borlaug, an agronomist working for the Rockefeller Foundation, would be a Nobel laureate credited with saving more lives than any person in human history. Despite all appearances, this “green revolution” did not occur overnight. Its roots go back several decades earlier. In 1940, the Vice President-elect, Henry Wallace, traveled to Mexico. He was “appalled” by the conditions there.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Growth, Increases in Agricultural Production and Trends in Food Prices
    The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development (2009) 1(3) Population Growth, Increases in Agricultural Production and Trends in Food Prices Douglas Southgate* *Douglas Southgate is a professor of agricultural economics at Ohio State University and author of The World Food Economy (Blackwell, 2007). Email: southgate.1=a=osu.edu (replace =a= with @) Abstract Green Revolution and other technological advances. For the world as a whole, per-hectare output of cereals, During the second half of the twentieth century, human which account for more than half the food people eat numbers and food demand grew at an unprecedented if the grain fed to livestock is factored in, had risen by pace, yet food supplies increased even faster. Demo- the late 1990s to 3.0 metric tons, which was double the graphic expansion is now slackening, due to dramatic average yield in the early 1960s (Southgate, Graham, reductions in human fertility in Asia, Latin America, and Tweeten 2007, p. 58). Primarily because of yield and other parts of the world. However, demand for growth, food supplies increased faster than food demand edible goods will continue to go up, mainly because throughout this period. improved living standards are causing per-capita con- Market trends constitute irrefutable proof that food sumption to rise. To avoid mounting food scarcity, the grew less scarce, not more so, during the second half of geographic expansion of agriculture at the expense of the twentieth century. Prices of corn, rice, and other forests and other habitats, or both, effective investment staple grains were 75 percent lower in the middle 1980s in research and development, especially in agricultural than in 1950.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Blades of Grass: the Impact of the Green Revolution
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES TWO BLADES OF GRASS: THE IMPACT OF THE GREEN REVOLUTION Douglas Gollin Casper Worm Hansen Asger Wingender Working Paper 24744 http://www.nber.org/papers/w24744 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 June 2018 We would like to thank Philipp Ager, Felipe Valencia Caicedo, Carl-Johan Dalgaard, Stefan Dercon, Dave Donaldson, Cheryl Doss, James Fenske, Nicola Gennaioli, Walker Hanlon, Peter Sandholt Jensen, Nicolai Kaarsen, Tim Kelley, Nathan Nunn, James Stevenson, David N. Weil, and seminar participants at the University of Copenhagen, McGill, the 7th Annual Workshop on Growth, History and Development at the University of Southern Denmark, the 2016 annual European Economic Association meeting in Geneva, the 2017 annual AEA meeting in Chicago, and the NBER conference on Trade and Agriculture for helpful comments and suggestions. Douglas Gollin currently serves as chair of the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) of the Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) of the CGIAR, the publicly funded agricultural research and development consortium under whose auspices many of the Green Revolution varieties were developed. Gollin's views do not represent those of SPIA, the ISPC, or the CGIAR. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer- reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2018 by Douglas Gollin, Casper Worm Hansen, and Asger Wingender. All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]